No restrictions other than the Tribally-owned requirement should apply since as long as a Tribally-owned enterprise can meet the requirements under the Act; then the purposes of the Act are being satisfied and employment is being generated on and around Indian Reservations. The requirements set out in 7 (d) 2 (6) Definitions are overly restrictive particularly when compared to the 7 (c) definitions. The Devils Lake Sioux Tribe believes that a qualified Triballyowned enterprise should be one defined as one that is no less than fify-one percent (51%) owned by a federally recognized tribe or Alaska Native Regional Corporation, is located within the exterior boundaries of that Tribe's reservation or Region and whose workforce is at least sixty percent (60%) Indian. This definition is sound and allows for the employment of a non-Indian minority to meet workforce needs which may not be readily supplied by the Indian community. This In summary, the Devils Lake Sioux Tribe supports the principal policy thrusts of the proposed amendments 7 (c) and a new 7 (d) to the Indian Self Determination Act. There is an immediate need nation wide to create permanent jobs on Indian reservations. proposal is the first real attempt to address the problem of unemployment on Indian reservations. It can work and if it is intelligently administrated, it can become a centerpiece of a national Indian policy which really does attempt to meet the Federal Government's responsibility to help Native Americans to remain on their homelands and have productive lives. Prepared Statement On behalf of Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes Seneca Nation, New York Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation Kodiak Area Native Association Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association Bristol Bay Native Association and the Association of Regional Health Directors, Alaska Prepared by Sonosky, Chambers & Sachse We submit this testimony on behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, the Seneca Nation, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation, the Kodiak Area Native Association, the Aleutian/Pribilof Island Association, the Bristol Bay Native Association, and the Association of Regional Health Directors of Alaska. These tribes and tribal organizations appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on P.L. 93-638, the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act. They request that these comments be added to the record of the hearing held on April 22, 1987. The tribes and tribal organizations presenting this testimony are located in the East, the Great Plains, and Alaska. They have contracts and grants with both the Department of the Interior and the Department of HHS, some of which are of modest size and some of which involve over $6 million. Two members of the Association of Regional Health Directors have contracts in excess of $11 million. These contractors have a broad range of experience and points of view. Nevertheless, they have experienced many of the same problems in the 638 contract process, and are thus able to speak with a common voice on several important issues. P.L. 93-638 gave tribes and tribal organizations the opportunity to take charge of many federal programs that benefit Indians and Alaska Natives. The Act has expanded the role of tribal governments and given Indians and Alaska Natives a stronger voice in health, education, social services, law enforcement, natural resources, and other programs. Among tribes, P.L. 93-638 is one of the best-known and widely supported federal laws ever enacted. At the same time, tribes and tribal organizations have experienced tremendous frustrations with the 638 process. They receive insufficient funds to operate contracted programs. They are not permitted to contract for some programs at all. They are burdened with excessive paperwork and agency oversight. Minor contract modifications, virtually every purchase of equipment, and most leases and subcontracts require agency approval. Federal procurement regulations designed for an entirely different sort of contract are indiscriminately applied to them. The process of self-determination has become a complex and often adversarial exercise in bureaucracy. The contractors represented here commend this Committee for its decision to take on these complicated problems. In this testimony, the contractors identify some of the most troublesome problems and also suggest solutions. I. Agency refusal to contract for particular programs and to provide information on funds available for programs. In the Self-Determination Act, Congress established a broad policy favoring tribal assumption of programs and functions formerly undertaken by the federal government. Unfortunately, both BIA and IHS have violated the Act by arbitrarily excluding certain activities from the self-determination process claiming that those activities cannot be contracted by tribes. For the tribal contractors represented here, the programs for which agencies have refused to contract have been in several categories: (1) activities performed by the Area Office; (2) "administrative" portions of programs; (3) activities that the agency claims are part of its trust responsibility; (4) activities that do not belong in any of the usual "uncontractable" categories but which the agency has arbitrarily decided are not subject to contract. A few examples will give an idea of the magnitude of the problem. IHS frequently refuses to contract for Area Office functions. This has led to absurd results, such as in the sanitarian program in Alaska. IHS has refused to allow the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation and other regional health corporations to administer this program, which improves water and |